normaleagle05 said:

---

You've got to defend your real property rights. What you described wasn't the fault of the fence's location.

---

Guy did it to several neighbors, only one fought, not sure of outcome. It was absolutely not worth the cost of the fight. It was literally over an oil company removing an old fence.

SweaterVest said:

---

yakin ag said:

---

A well funded neighbor to a relative filed an adverse possession lawsuit on a 3 ft strip of land along a fence line on an family property. It was messy, involved a disagreement with a pipeline company, and would've cost more than the property was worth to fight. We build fences on property lines now.

---

This wasn't in Bee county was it?

---

No it wasn't.

eric76 said:

---

When I was a kid, one half section that we leased had the fence about ten feet or so inside the property for half a mile. On the other side of the fence was a dirt road across the end of the field for the neighbor.

So one day we pulled out the fence and plowed up the road. The neighbor was hopping mad about it but didn't have a legal claim to the land. What really made him mad was that the underground line for the irrigation well was just barely on his property. When irrigating (row irrigation at the time), the valve for the irrigation pipe was right by the property line and the pipe had to run across his new dirt road, make a 90 degree turn, and then run down along the road. It was a huge pain in the neck for him to irrigate.

Of course, they could have done without the road, but then he would have had to carry the irrigation pipe in and then walk in whenever he wanted to move the irrigation down a few rows.

These days, there is a circle on the field instead and no road.

---

Depending on how long your neighbor had been using the road and you not using the road, he may have had prescriptive rights to that road that you plowed up, as long as he was the only one using it. You may have dodged a bullet there.

Doc Hayworth said:

---

eric76 said:

---

When I was a kid, one half section that we leased had the fence about ten feet or so inside the property for half a mile. On the other side of the fence was a dirt road across the end of the field for the neighbor.

So one day we pulled out the fence and plowed up the road. The neighbor was hopping mad about it but didn't have a legal claim to the land. What really made him mad was that the underground line for the irrigation well was just barely on his property. When irrigating (row irrigation at the time), the valve for the irrigation pipe was right by the property line and the pipe had to run across his new dirt road, make a 90 degree turn, and then run down along the road. It was a huge pain in the neck for him to irrigate.

Of course, they could have done without the road, but then he would have had to carry the irrigation pipe in and then walk in whenever he wanted to move the irrigation down a few rows.

These days, there is a circle on the field instead and no road.

---

Depending on how long your neighbor had been using the road and you not using the road, he may have had prescriptive rights to that road that you plowed up, as long as he was the only one using it. You may have dodged a bullet there.

---

Perhaps the owner of the land that we leased it from had given him (or the previous owner) permission to use it as a road for the time being. If I remember correctly, we also used it on occasion during harvest instead of driving across the field to get to it.

If it makes any difference, that particular neighbor had been living there for less than ten years. When I was in elementary school, another family who were good friends with my parents owned it. If claims of adverse possession were an issue, then the reason for plowing it up might have had to do with that.

eric76 said:

---

Doc Hayworth said:

---

eric76 said:

---

When I was a kid, one half section that we leased had the fence about ten feet or so inside the property for half a mile. On the other side of the fence was a dirt road across the end of the field for the neighbor.

So one day we pulled out the fence and plowed up the road. The neighbor was hopping mad about it but didn't have a legal claim to the land. What really made him mad was that the underground line for the irrigation well was just barely on his property. When irrigating (row irrigation at the time), the valve for the irrigation pipe was right by the property line and the pipe had to run across his new dirt road, make a 90 degree turn, and then run down along the road. It was a huge pain in the neck for him to irrigate.

Of course, they could have done without the road, but then he would have had to carry the irrigation pipe in and then walk in whenever he wanted to move the irrigation down a few rows.

These days, there is a circle on the field instead and no road.

---

Depending on how long your neighbor had been using the road and you not using the road, he may have had prescriptive rights to that road that you plowed up, as long as he was the only one using it. You may have dodged a bullet there.

---

Perhaps the owner of the land that we leased it from had given him (or the previous owner) permission to use it as a road for the time being. If I remember correctly, we also used it on occasion during harvest instead of driving across the field to get to it.

If it makes any difference, that particular neighbor had been living there for less than ten years. When I was in elementary school, another family who were good friends with my parents owned it. If claims of adverse possession were an issue, then the reason for plowing it up might have had to do with that.

---

Adverse possession and prescriptive rights are two completely different things.

I'd build on the fence line and pay for it myself. Actually, I've done that at my place. Other than cross fences or a small fence for a yard, I would always build along the property line. The main reason in my opinion is because people in the future won't be able to read this forum and understand what you've done. It likely will lead to some land dispute 2 or 3 generations from now and why bring that on your grandkids.

PS -- actually, one other exception. I built a new fence along the highway and I hate to cut down trees, so I chose to build my new fence a foot or two inside the property line just to avoid cutting down trees, but it's up against the state/county ROW, not a neighbor.


.

Doc Hayworth said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Doc Hayworth said:

---

eric76 said:

---

When I was a kid, one half section that we leased had the fence about ten feet or so inside the property for half a mile. On the other side of the fence was a dirt road across the end of the field for the neighbor.

So one day we pulled out the fence and plowed up the road. The neighbor was hopping mad about it but didn't have a legal claim to the land. What really made him mad was that the underground line for the irrigation well was just barely on his property. When irrigating (row irrigation at the time), the valve for the irrigation pipe was right by the property line and the pipe had to run across his new dirt road, make a 90 degree turn, and then run down along the road. It was a huge pain in the neck for him to irrigate.

Of course, they could have done without the road, but then he would have had to carry the irrigation pipe in and then walk in whenever he wanted to move the irrigation down a few rows.

These days, there is a circle on the field instead and no road.

---

Depending on how long your neighbor had been using the road and you not using the road, he may have had prescriptive rights to that road that you plowed up, as long as he was the only one using it. You may have dodged a bullet there.

---

Perhaps the owner of the land that we leased it from had given him (or the previous owner) permission to use it as a road for the time being. If I remember correctly, we also used it on occasion during harvest instead of driving across the field to get to it.

If it makes any difference, that particular neighbor had been living there for less than ten years. When I was in elementary school, another family who were good friends with my parents owned it. If claims of adverse possession were an issue, then the reason for plowing it up might have had to do with that.

---

Adverse possession and prescriptive rights are two completely different things.

---

Isn't the main difference is that adverse possession gives them title to the land while a prescriptive easement leaves the title with the owner but gives rights to use the land in some way to someone else? Many of the elements, but not all, are, I think, the same.

If the previous owner of the adjoining farm had permission to use it, then he wouldn't have had a claim for a prescriptive easement. When he retired and sold the adjacent farm to the new owner, would any permission that he had transfer to the new owner?

I don't think that the previous owner of the adjoining farm would have ever tried to claim an easement. I'm not so sure about the next owner. My recollection is that the new owner bought the farm in about 1965 or 1966 -- that was about the time his kids started riding the school bus -- and we plowed up the road sometime around 1969 or 1970.

Just read the entire thread, and got more than a few chuckles. I understand the OP's POV, and sympathize with him. Remember he (his family) built the existing boundary fences on three sides of the "leased" property that is being surrendered. It seems only fair to me that the new owner should be willing to share the expenses of a new fence along the property line.

But if he's unwilling to, why not forego building a fence? Doesn't the law require him to build a fence in order to keep your cattle off his property? What has triggered you to build a fence at all, other than it's the neighborly thing to do, while expecting the neighbor to share costs. Are you concerned said neighbor might try to "steal" or claim cattle he observed/found on his property?

Unsaid thus far, but to make this "plan" work, you'll hafta remove a 3' section of the existing perpendicular boundary fences leaving a 3' gap that would allow "his cattle" to escape his property. THIS is the clearly spiteful part of your proposed scenario, and would both anger your new neighbor, and put you in a bad light with anyone else who came to know about it. This includes everyone your neighbor bad-mouths you to, as well as any potential juror.

What compels you to build the fence?

I have a similar predicament with my neighbor, which is a golf course. Our common fence is in bad shape, and needs to be replaced, but I have put off approaching the GC about sharing the cost until I know the (legal) obligation we each have. Complicating it further is the fact the GC has a long term lease from a government entity. Gonna need to read the linked articles/law.

AgySkeet06 said:

---

It's ok, I asked for help with fence law and some good references were shared that supported our decisions. We have great relationships with our other neighbors for over 50 years when it comes to fence maintenance and costs. I didn't come here to bad mouth the neighbor but to make sure our investment was protected and not taken advantage of.
You can call me the jerk in the situation but I'm not the one that cut the chain on our gate and trespassed through our property to access his because he didn't know how to read his survey markers and too cheap to install his own gate off the access road.

---

Have you talked to him about leasing his acreage for grazing rights? Or is he opposed to it?

Where it becomes petty based on what you've said Is you'll have to tear down 6 feet of your own fence along the outer boundary to ensure he doesn't tie-in. If you think the neighbor is an ass now, this will get messy.

My family ranch has had some awkward encounters because of this. Imagine years from now when that fence needs to be replaced and your great children realize they own 3 more feet of land. Whomever the neighbor is at that point won't split the cost again when they are told the line is moving on them 3 feet.

AgySkeet06 said:

---

geez guys, he literally cannot graze without building a fence or his livestock would be loose. we will essentially be leaving a 4 wheeler trail between the property line and our new fence

Rough schematic for reference.

---

you now have a visual representation of the amount of land you paid for, but are giving away to your neighbor for free. See if you can negotiate getting a portion of his sale barn money based off the amount of grass on "your land" that his cattle will be grazing off of.

Is everyone familiar with the couple in St Louis who were waving firearms around at protesters for crossing property that it turns out they don't even own?

The couple has been involved in a whole lot of lawsuits over the years. If they think they might be able to get something over someone, they will.

It turns out that they are attempting to take 0.41 acres by adverse possession from a neighbor. From http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html:

Quote:

---

In 2019, the McCloskeys sued another neighbor with a squatter's rights claim to 0.41 acres that were fenced off incorrectly and had been maintained by McCloskey and previous owners even though they did not have a legal title to it.

"The Parcel has been continuously possessed by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title for a period far in excess of 10 years and such possession has been, in fact, hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous," the McCloskeys claimed. The suit is pending.

---

They are also trying to take some land next to theirs by adverse possession. The land is owned by the neighborhood association, but they want it. The recent incident wasn't the first time that they pulled their firearms against someone for crossing that land which is not theirs -- the previous time was one of their own neighbors.

Quote:

---

He may not get any benefit from the fence ...

---

I'll never understand this "logic", or lack thereof. How is having a completed boundary fence around (especially) rural property not considered a benefit? Such lack of awareness is mind boggling!

Seems like someone other than OP should talk to OP's neighbor.

Ideally I'd say OP should, but he seems like an ass and likely to make things worse.

Maybe OP's brother or someone else with an interest in the property?

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

He may not get any benefit from the fence ...

---

I'll never understand this "logic", or lack thereof. How is having a completed boundary fence around (especially) rural property not considered a benefit? Such lack of awareness is mind boggling!

---

When I was a kid, every farm that I know of had a fence at the boundary with the roads.

These days many farmers don't have the fence. If they need a fence for cattle on wheat pasture in the winter, they just put in an electric fence and pick it up again once they move the cattle.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

He may not get any benefit from the fence ...

---

I'll never understand this "logic", or lack thereof. How is having a completed boundary fence around (especially) rural property not considered a benefit? Such lack of awareness is mind boggling!

---

Come on Boerne. It's not that difficult to see the extremely limited benefit the fence could be to one neighbor compared to the other under the circumstances....especially if one guy isn't running cattle, growing crops, or baling hay.

I get the OPs angst over stingy neighbors but this isn't a case of 50/50 benefit.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

He may not get any benefit from the fence ...

---

I'll never understand this "logic", or lack thereof. How is having a completed boundary fence around (especially) rural property not considered a benefit? Such lack of awareness is mind boggling!

---

I think you missed my point. The OP has the responsibility of protecting his cattle - from getting in the road, onto neighbors property, etc. He can build the fence on the property line, or off of the property line, I really don't care.

buzzardb267 said:

---

Just to throw a little more confusion out there, i was a surveyor for 30 years and expert witness in several boundary disputes. If the neighbor ever tries to claim the "spite strip" (I was also an engineer and that is what they called a strip left between an road and someone else's property) and it goes to a jury, the law is vague enough it may not matter about boundary agreements, open and hostile use, etc. Juries will do what juries want to do. Appeal is an option, but so is cost. We lost a case in Cooke County where the little old lady kept a garden on some property my client acquired. No fences, no surveys, no survey markers.....didn't matter. The buyer, the surveyor, and the buyer's attorneys were all from out of the county. The jury gave her the land. It wasn't worth continuing the fight.

Another case was where two brothers were left land on the Trinity River by their grandfather. Being in floodplain, there were no fences. A city in the DFW area commenced building a golf course on the land and Chicago Title has issued a policy on it due to a faulty survey. One of the brothers took 50 years of tax receipts to the City Manager and was told "we have insurance, sue us". He did. Lost initially, but won on appeal.

I asked an attorney once if we were going to win a case and he said it depends on which court we get. I said I thought we knew what court we had. He said there are two courts, a court of law and a court of equity. I never forgot that.

---

One of my brothers had a lawsuit that was open and shut and lost it anyway. He had bought an aircraft (I think it was the Bellanca) that turned out to have the wings from some completely different airplane! When he discovered that, he couldn't fly it again until he could have the right wings installed to make it airworthy.

Reminds me of a drug operation near Corsicana in the 70s. A DC-3 landed in a field and LEO had been tipped. They were on the scene but everyone escaped. Navarro County wanted the plane and DEA, or whoever, let them have it. Obviously, there were no papers in the plane, so no air worthiness papers. The cost to make it airworthy wasn't worth it, so the County sold the plane for a couple of used patrol cars. They burned a large quantity of pot and pictures were in the Corsicana Sun with the headline "They should have burned the plane and sold the drugs".

buzzardb267 said:

---

Reminds me of a drug operation near Corsicana in the 70s. A DC-3 landed in a field and LEO had been tipped. They were on the scene but everyone escaped. Navarro County wanted the plane and DEA, or whoever, let them have it. Obviously, there were no papers in the plane, so no air worthiness papers. The cost to make it airworthy wasn't worth it, so the County sold the plane for a couple of used patrol cars. They burned a large quantity of pot and pictures were in the Corsicana Sun with the headline "They should have burned the plane and sold the drugs".

---

Without the maintenance logs, an airplane isn't worth much.

These days, you can do a turboprop upgrade on a DC-3. In doing so, they pretty much remanufacture the aircraft.

I wonder if they would need the log books to do the upgrade. Of course, to do it, you'd probably need to get a ferry permit from the FAA, if they'll issue one under those cirumstances, to make the flight to where they do the upgrade. If they won't issue the ferry permit, that would leave hauling it up there on a truck.

It was a long time ago, but I think whoever took possession of it, scrapped it.